"One problem which we considered is the fact that one gene often gives
rise to more than one product"

The ethics of patenting DNA
Launched today by the Nuffield Council on Bioethics, Tuesday 23 July,
2002
To download a copy, click here
http://www.nuffieldbioethics.org/filelibrary/pdf/theethicsofpatentingdna.pdf

see also Genewatch reports at http://www.genewatch.org:

Patenting Life - The Guardian's special supplement on gene patenting
based on research specially commissioned from GeneWatch UK.

Patenting Genes - Stifling Research and Jeopardising Healthcare -Joint
briefing with Econexus examining the consequences of allowing genes to
be patented.

These show how gene patents are already:

*limiting access to healthcare by increasing costs of diagnosis and
treatment inhibiting the free exchange of information and materials between
researchers;
*involving unsuspecting parties in extensive and costly legal battles;
*preventing or hindering development of medicines and treatments

The rules on granting patents for human genes should be much tighter,
says a leading panel of UK bioethicists.

Patents protect discoveries and inventions from being exploited by other
people, but the Nuffield Council on Bioethics says too many patents are
being issued for discoveries which are not particularly inventive.

The discussion paper recommends a number of significant changes to the
way that patents are granted involving genetic material.

It questions whether the current patent system is achieving its goals:
the stimulation of innovation for the public good, and the rewarding of
people for useful inventions.

The Nuffield Council recommends that DNA sequences should satisfy the
strict criteria of being novel, inventive and useful, before they are considered
for patent.

This move is intended to safeguard the interests of the inventor as
well as the interests of the public, it says.

The race to patent

A patent is an exclusive right over an invention, which means that anybody
using the invention within a set time limit must pay the inventor. Patents
of DNA sequences last for 20 years. And, at present, they are doled out
rather easily.

Since the sequencing of the human genome, companies have been rushing
to patent genes; even though they often do not know what the genes do,
or what value they may have in the future.

The race is frantic because if it strikes lucky, and the patented gene
turns out to be useful within 20 years, the company stands to make a lot
of money. But, in this case, what is good news for commercial companies
may be bad news for patients, says the council.

Discovering how a new gene might help people is often lower on the list
of priorities than patenting it fast, and finding more new sequences to
patent.

Under the current system, the report's authors fear, diagnostic tests
and medicines could become unaffordable or unavailable, the development
of new ones might be slowed down and research could be inhibited.

"We are concerned that, for patents involving DNA, the patent system
is in danger of not achieving its main goal - to stimulate innovation for
the public good," said Dr Sandy Thomas, Director of the Nuffield Council
on Bioethics.

Finding the balance

The Nuffield Council's recommendations reflect an attempt to encourage
research while safeguarding the interests of patients.

Under the new system it proposes, those applying for patents must be
able to detail what a gene does and how it is useful. In other words, research
into the application of DNA sequences, which directly benefits patients,
will be rewarded.

The report's authors recognise that the patent system should reward
people for useful ideas and inventions but argue that, in the case of DNA
sequences, the balance is currently too firmly in favour of the claimant.

"One problem which we considered is the fact that one gene often
gives rise to more than one product," comments Dr Thomas.

"This means that it is quite common to find an entirely new use for
a DNA sequence after it has been patented.

"If a patent protects all the uses of a sequence, this can give extensive,
and in our view unjustified, rewards to the original researcher."